Leslie v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.

Citations

• 82 Kan. 152
• 107 P. 765
• 1910 Kan. LEXIS 211

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Railroads — Regulations Imposed upon Shipper to Whom Free Transportation Was Given. A cattle shipper was given free transportation to accompany his. stock, subject to the following restrictions contained in a signed contract:</p> <p>“We further agree to specially observe the following regulations: (1) Remain in a safe place in the caboose attached to the cars while the train is in motion. (2) Get on and off said caboose only while the same is still or stationary. (3) Will not get on or be on any freight car while switching is being or is to be done at stations or other places or at any other time.”</p> <p>Held, the regulations were reasonable and not in contravention of law or sound public policy.</p> <p>2. - Duty of Shipper to Comply with Conditions of the Contract. A cattle shipper using such transportation must regulate his conduct at stopping places by his contract, and hence is obliged to ascertain and know whether he has time to examine his stock and return to his place in the caboose before the train proceeds on its journey.</p> <p>3. -Injury to Shipper — Passenger or Licensee — Waiver of Conditions of the Contract. A cattle shipper using transportation of the character described completed an examination of his stock at a station just as the train commenced to move. The caboose was some twenty cars to the rear. He started to walk toward the caboose, when the conductor told him he had better get on, that the train would be going so fast by the time the caboose got there he could not get on. He then climbed the ladder of a freight car, and before he reached the top was raked off by a water crane overhanging the track. Held, the conditions of the contract were waived, that he was-, not a mere licensee, and that the carrier is liable in damages, for the injuries he sustained.</p> <p>4. - Contributory Negligence of a Passenger. Under the-circumstances of this case it is held, that the question whether the shipper referred to was